
.4.x>i>i«je:ss 



Xj. IS^j^IDISOISr JDJ^-^, 



DELIVERED AT ODD FELLOWS' HALL, 



lVe»' Orlea-MS, Oetobei- IStJi, 1S60. 



i»;'l 



^IDIDI^EISS 



L. ]VX^^I>I^1>IV 13^4.^^, 



Sk Mnim, ©k dloMtitutian, 



AND THK 



ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS, 



AT ODD FELLOWS' HALL, 



Ne^w Orleans, Oetolt>e»- IStlx, ISOO. 



NEW ORLKAN8: 
CLARK A BRISBIN, PRINTERS, 19 COMMERCIAL PLACK. 



1 



^^0 

•US'] 






Mi\ President and Fellow Citizens : 

I could have wished that the pleasing duty of address- 
ing you on this occasion had devolved on another — one 
who, by the power of his reasoning, the beauty of his 
diction, and the charm of his eloquence, would reap 
golden and ever blooming laurels in the noble and 
patriotic cause in which joii are engaged — one who could 
roll away the misty vapors of sectional discord from 
the loftiest peaks of our mountains and open up to 
view the pleasing and enchanting prospect of one whole 
and common country smiling beneath the glorious influ- 
ence of " the Union, the Constitution, and the Enforce- 
ment of the Laws." 

In the performance, however, of the duty assigned 
me, you must not expect an ambitious parade, an osten- 
tatious display, a gaudy exhibition, or a wandering o'er 
arid fields in fancied flights to cull a flower, to collect a 
gem, or to embellish and adorn — for the cause of truth 
and justice, like beauty, needs not the aid of fiction and 
ornament, for it stands upon its own merits and the 
primary interest of society, and " deriving its effulgent 
light from the radiations of Heaven." 

In all ages of the world leagues and governments 
have been formed for the best and for the w^orst of pur- 
poses. And in proportion to the virtue and intelligence, 
or the baseness and depravity of those who formed and 
composed them, have they been blessings of inestimable 
value, in ameliorating and improving the moral, the 



[ 2 ] 

social and the political condition of their fellow-men, or 
have exerted a deleterious and corrupting influence upon 
social and civilized society- And as the eye careers 
along the vista of the past and sweeps o'er the present, 
it beholds no form of government more pleasing to the 
eye, more fascinating to the understanding, or more 
grateful to the soul than that bequeathed to us by our 
patriotic and illustrious sires. But, unhappily, the 
nia'ht and o'loom of sectional a^-itation which now o'er- 
shadows the land, has marred the beauty and impaired 
the glory of our free government, and now threatens all 
with more than Cimmerian darkness. 

And why, fellow citizens, this agitation — this night 
and gloom that now overshadows the land ? Need I 
tell you, fellow-citizens, that it is an idle and a useless 
agitation of the subject of slavery ? Need I tell you, in 
the recent language of a portion of the Democracy of 
Humphreys county, in the Stcite of Tennessee, that it is 
a question " of little practical importance" at the pres- 
ent time? Fellow-citizens, this agitation, as I now 
believe, is of little practical importance. All our rights, 
under the Constitution, are more secure Vv^ithout it. All 
our rights, in a practical point of view^, are more safe 
without than with this agitation. Every man of expe- 
rience and judgment knows that wherever soil, climate 
and productions invite, there slavery will go ; and all 
know that where such is not the case, no power can force 
it where it is not profitable. It is, therefore, a matter 
that will regulate itself, and needs no law to restrain or 
expand it. 

Prohibitory laws will not and cannot prevent its pen- 
etration into thdse regions where it will be profitable. 
Nor on the other hand can fostering laws plant or esta- 
blish it in uncongenial climes. If the people want it 



[ 3 1 

they will have it. But on the contrary if they do not 
want it they will not have it, and they will not counte- 
nance it when they come to form their Constitution. Now, 
fellow-citizens, it seems to me that these views ought 
to be sufficient to allay all agitation and excitement on 
this subject. But if there be those who entertain a 
different opinion, let them look to "the Union, the Con- 
stitution and the Enforcement of the Laws" for the se- 
curit}' of all their sacred rights. 

Beneath the glorious flag of the Union, the shield of 
the Constitution, and the sword of the execution of the 
laws, every Constitutional right is secure. 

The constitutionality of every law of Congress is sub- 
ject to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. If unconstitutional, they are void and have no 
force or effect whatever, and any one attempting to 
execute the same would be considered a trespasser. 

Hence, if Congress should ever pass any law on the sub- 
ject of slavery, its constitutionality is subject to lie de- 
termined arid settled by the Supreme Court of the U. S., 
whose decision would be final and conclusive on all par- 
ties. Here, then, is the great source of our safety. And 
here too, is the great bulwark, under the Constitution, 
by which the angry waves of sectional agitation and 
unconstitutional legislation are broken, and thrown back 
peacefully to the broad bosom of the ocean from whence 
they came. We should, then, one and all, turn a deaf 
ear to the Syren song of secession, which is but another 
name for Bevolution and disunion. 

Secession and revolution is no remedy for any evils 
of unconstitutional legislation. But it would do more, 
in my judgment, to accelerate the extinction of slavery 
than anything that could possibly occur. 

For by secession and revolution, it would be limited 
and forever confined within its present boundaries. 



[ 4 ] 

England, France and Spain would never consent to, or 
allow of its expansion beyond its present limits. 

And after having inaugurated the consequences of 
secession and revolution, even if successful, no aid against 
the interference of those powers could be looked for from 
those with whom we had dissolved our social and polit- 
ical connections. 

It is, therefore, wise for us to adhere to our blood 
bought Union, and bequeathed to us by the patriotic 
fathers of the Revolution. 

■ And as the proud Eagle, the bird of Jove, springs 
aloft and soars away among the stars and looks with 
an undazzled eye upon the sun, so does the importance 
of " the Union, the Constitution, and the Enforcement 
of the Laws," rise superior to, and soar far, far away 
above all other social and political considerations. 

It is to the Union, the Constitution and the Enforce- 
ment of the Laws that we must look for all our peace, 
prosperity and happiness at home, and for all our dig- 
nity and respect abroad. The Constitution was the vol- 
untary act of the whole people in their sovereign capacity 
as freemen, and is alike binding and obligatory upon 
all — the whole people of the United States — until they 
shall see fit to supersede or change the same in the 
mode and manner pointed out in the Constitution, which 
was formed for the wisest and for the best of purposes. 
These noble purposes, as well as the sublime and omni- 
potent authority from which they emanated, are all 
clearly and unmistakably set forth in the preamble to 
the Constitution, as follows : 

"We, the people of the United States, in order to 
fortn a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure do- 
mestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, 
promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and 



I 5 J 

establish this Constitution for the United States of 
America." 

Such the miglity and holy ori2:in, and such the mag- 
nificent and sublime objects for which the Union was 
formed and from which the Constitution sprung. It was 
baptized with the patriotic blood of our illustrious sires, 
and consecrated with the tears, privations, trials and suf- 
ferings of the patriotic mothers and daughters of the 
Revolution. 

To promote the general welfare, to secure the bles- 
sings of liberty to themselves and their posterity the 
glorious battles of the Revolution were fought by our an- 
cestors, and theL nion and the Constitution, guaranteeing 
the blessings of liberty, were designed to be immortal. 

In no event then can or is it to be supposed that any 
one or more of the parties to the Union and the Consti- 
tution should be at liberty or have the right and power 
to disregard the one or violate the other. 

JSTeither the States nor the people can change the Con- 
stitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, except 
in the mode and manner pointed out in the Constitu- 
tion, and which, as has been well said, " is framed for 
ages to come, and is designed to approach immortality 
as nearly as human institutions can approach it." 

It is, therefore, clear that the stability of the Consti- 
tution and the permanency of the Union was not de- 
signed to depend upon or to be altered, destroyed, or 
disregarded at the mere will and pleasure of any part 
or portion of the people less than a legal and constitu- 
tional majority. 

No State, nor any part or portion of the people of the 
United States less than the whole, have the right either 
to violate the Constitution and the laws made in pur- 
suance thereof, or to secede from the Union. 



The sovereignty of the United States is not in an}^ 
State, or in any part or portion of the people less than 
the whole. It resides not in the States, but in the great 
body of the whole people of the United States. Every 
freeman in this country constitutes a portion of the 
sovereignty of the same. In this country all are free- 
men (without subjects) and are entitled to freemen's 
rights. And the great foundation upon which these 
rights repose are the Union, the Constitution, and the En-, 
forcement of the Laws. It would, therefore, seem to be 
a self-evident proposition, that no State or States, nor 
any part or portion of the people, can disregard the one 
or violate the other at their mere will and pleasure. 

The correctness of these views (if indeed it is possi- 
ble for any one to entertain a doubt on the subject) is 
further evinced from the fact that the sovereignty of the 
nation is in the wliole peoi^le of tJie United States^ and not 
in the States or in any subdivisions of them. 

In the case of Chisholm's Executors vs. the State of 
Greorgia, 2 Dallas R. 445 (3 Cond. R. 72,) Mr. Justice 
Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
after avowing his disapprobation of the purposes for 
which the terms State and sovereignty are frequently 
used and of the object to which the application of the 
term sovereignty is almost universally made, and by 
way of evincing the meaning of the terms State and 
sovereignty and the application which he made of the 
latter, said : 

" In doing this, I shall have occasion incidentally to 
evince how true it is that States and governments were 
made for man ; and at the same time how true it is that 
his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vil- 
lified, and at last oppressed their masters and maker. 

Man, "fearfully and wonderfully made," is the work- 



L 7 1 

inanship of his All-Perfect Creator. A State, useful 
and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior con- 
trivance of man ; and from his native dignity derives 
all its acquired importance. When I speak of a State 
as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance 
inferior only to that which is divine. Of all human 
contrivances, it is certainly most transcendantly excel- 
lent. It is concerning this contrivance that Cicero says 
so sublimely : ' JSTothing which is exhibited upon our 
globe is more acceptable to that divinity which, governs 
the whole universe, than those communities and assem- 
blages of men which, lawfully associated, are denomi- 
nated States.' 

Let a State be considered as subordinate to the people ; 
but let everything else be subordinate to the State. The 
latter part of this position is equally necessary with the 
former. For in the practice, and even at length in the 
science of politics, there has been a strong current 
against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate 
or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the 
means. As the State has claimed precedence of the 
people, so, in the inverted course of things, the Govern- 
ment has often claimed precedence of the State ; and to 
this perversion in the second degree, many of the 
volumes of confusion concerning sovereignty owe. their 
existence. 

The ministers, dignified very properly by the appel- 
lation of magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded 
in their wish, to be considered as the sovereigns of the 
State. This second degree of perversion is confined to 
the old world, and begins to diminish even there ; but 
the first degree is still too prevalent, even in the several 
States of whicii this Union is composed. By a State I 
mean a complete body of free persons, united together 



[ 8 ] 

for their common benefit, to enjoy peaqeably what is 
their own, and to do justice to others. 

The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound 
by human laws is that he binds himself. Upon the 
same principles upon which he becomes bound by the 
laws he becomes amenable to the courts of justice, which 
are formed and authorized by those laws. If one free 
man, an original sovereign, may do all this, why may 
not an aggregate of freemen, a collection of original 
sovereigns, do this likewise ? If the dignity of each 
singly is undiminished, the dignity of all jointly must 
be unimpaired. 

Who, or what is sovereignty ? What is his or its 
sovereignty ? On this subject the errors and mazes are 
endless and inexplicable. To enumerate all, therefore, 
will not be expected ; to take notice of some will be 
necessary to the full illustration of the present import- 
ant cause. In one sense the term sovereign has for its 
correlative, subject. In this sense, the term can receive 
no application ; for it has no object in the Constitution 
of the United States. Under that Constitution there 
are citizens, but no subjects. ' Citizens of the United 
States.' (Art. 1, sec. 2.) ' Citizens of another State.' 
' Citizens of different States.' ' A State or citizen 
thereof,' (Art. 3, sec. 3.) The term subject occurs, in- 
deed, once in the instrument ; but to mark the contrast 
strongly, the epithet ' foreign ' (lb.) is prefixed. 

As a citizen, I know the government of that State to 
be republican ; and my definition of such a government 
is, one constructed on this principle : that the supreme 
power resides in the body of the people. As a Judge 
of this Court, I know and can decide upon the know- 
ledge that the citizens of Georgia, when the}^ acted up 
the large scale of the Union, as a part of the people of 



L ^ ] 

the United States, did not surrender the supreme or 
sovereign power to that State ; but, as to the purposes 
of the Union, retained it to themselves As to the pur- 
poses of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sover- 
eign State." 

And this same learned Judge, in further explaining 
why the pretensions set up that Georgia was a sover- 
eign State was not true in point of fact, and in tracing 
and explaining the sense in which the term " sovereign " 
is frequently used, says: "In this sense, sovereignty 
is derived from a feudal source ; and like many parts of 
that system so degrading to man, still retains its influ- 
ence over our sentiments and conduct, though the cause 
by which that influence was produced never extended 
to the American States. The accurate and well in- 
formed President Henault, in his excellent chronological 
abridgment of the History of France, tells us that about 
the end of the second race of kings, a new kind of pos- 
session w^as acquired under the name of fief. 

The governors of cities and provinces usurped equally 
the property of land and the administration of justice, 
and established themselves as proprietory seigniories 
over those places in which they had been only civil 
magistrates or military officers. By this means there 
was introduced into the State a new kind of authority, 
to which was assigned the appellation of sovereignty. 
In process of time the feudal system was extended over 
France and almost all the other nations of Europe. 
And every kingdom became, in fact, a large fief. Into 
England this system was introduced by the Conqueror, 
and to this era we may probably refer the English 
maxim, 'that the King, or Sovereign, is the fountain of 
justice.' 

Even in almost every nation which has been denomi- 



[ 10 ] 

iiated free, the State has assumed a supercilious pre- 
eminence above the people who have formed it ; hence, 
the haughty notions of State independence, State sover- 
eignty and State supremacy. In despotic governments 
the government has usurped in a similar manner, both 
upon the State and the people ; hence, all arbitraiy doc- 
trines and pretensions concerning the supreme, absolute 
and uncontrollable power of the government. In each, 
man is degraded from the prime rank which he ought 
to hold in human affairs ; in the latter, the State as well 
as the man is degraded. Of both degradations, striking 
instances occur in history, in politics, and in common 
life. 

In the United States, and in the several States which 
compose the Union, we go not so far ; but still w^e go 
one step farther than we ought to go in this unnatural 
and inverted order of things. The States, rather than 
the people, for whose sakes the States exist, are fre- 
quently the objects which attract and arrest our prin- 
cipal attention. This, I believe, has produced much of 
the confusion and perplexity which has appeared in 
several proceedings and several publications on State 
politics, and on the politics, too, of the United States. 

A State, I cheerfully admit, is, the noblest work of 
man ; but man himself, free and honest, is — I speak as 
to this world — the noblest work of God. 

Concerning the prerogative of Kings, and concerning 
the sovereignty of States, much has been said and writ- 
ten ; but little has been said and written concerning a 
subject much more dignified and important — the majesty 
of the people. The mode of expression which I would 
substitute in the place of that generally used, is not 
only politically but also (tor between true liberty and 



L 11 J 

true taste there is a close alliance) classically more cor- 
rect. 

On the mention of Athens a thousand refined and en- 
dearing associations rush at once into the memory of the 
scholar, the philosopher and the patriot. When Homer, 
one of the most correct as well as one of the oldest of 
human authorities, enumerates the other nations of 
Greece whose forces acted at the siege of Troy, he ar- 
ranges them under the names of their different kings 
or princes ; but when he comes to the Athenians he dis- 
tinguishes them by the peculiar appellation, of the peo- 
ple of Athens. The well-known address used by 
Demosthenes when he harangued and animated his as- 
sembled countrymen was, " 0, men of Athens." With 
the strictest propriety, therefore, classical and political, 
our national scene opens with the most magnificent ob- 
ject which the nation could present. " The people of 
the United States " are the first personages introduced. 
Who are those people ? They were the citizens of thir- 
teen States, each of which had a separate Constitution 
and government, and all of which were connected to- 
gether by articles of confederation. To the purposes 
of public strength and felicity that confederacy was 
totall}^ inadequate. A requisition on the several States 
terminated its authority ; executive or judicial authority 
it had none. 

In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to 
establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to pro- 
vide for the common defence, and to secure the blessing 
of liberty, those people, among whom were the people 
of Georgia, ordained and established the present Con- 
stitution. By that Constitution, legislative power is 
vested, executive power is vested, judicinl power is 
vested. 



[ 12 ] 

The question now opens fairly to our view : Could 
the people of those States, among whom were those of 
Georgia, bind those States, and Georgia among the 
others, by the legislative, executive and judicial power 
so vested? If the principles on which I have founded 
myself are just and true, this question must unavoid- 
ably receive an affirmative answer. If those States are 
the work of those people, those people — and that I may 
apply the case closely, the people of Georgia in parti- 
cular — could alter, as they pleased, their former work 
to any given degree ; they could diminish as well as en- 
large it. Any or all of the former State powers they 
could extinguish or transfer. The inference which ne- 
cessarily results is, that the Constitution, ordained and 
established by those people — and still closely to apply 
the case, in particular by the people of Georgia — could 
vest jurisdiction or judicial power over those States, 
and over the State of Georgia in particular." See also 
3 Cond. R 68. 

So in Marbury m. Madison, 1 Cranch's R., 137 ; (1 
Cond. R., 283) Chief Justice Marshall, who, "like that 
great luminary of light, extinguishes in a flood of reful- 
gence the twinkling splendor of every inferior planet," 
has well and admirably said, " That the people have 
an original right to establish for their future govern- 
ment such principles as, in their opinion, shall most 
conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which 
the whole American fabric has been erected. The ex- 
ercise of this original right is a very great exertion ; 
nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The 
principles, therefore, so established are deemed fun- 
damental ; and as the authority from which they pro- 
ceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed 
to be permanent." 



[ 13 1 

Again, in the great case of Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 
Wheat. R., 380, 382, Chief Justice Marshall says : 
" The American States, as well as the American people, 
have believed a close and firm Union to be essential to 
their liberty and to their happiness. They have been 
taught by experience that this Union cannot exist with- 
out a government for the whole ; and they have been 
taught by the same experience that this Government 
would be a mere shadow that must disappoint all their 
hopes, unless invested with large portions of that 
sovereignty which belongs to independent States. Un- 
der the influence of this opinion, and thus instructed 
by experience, the American people, in the conventions 
of their respective States, adopted the present Consti- 
tution. 

If it could be doubted whether from its nature it 
were not supreme in all cases where it is empowered to 
act, that doubt would be removed by the declaration, 
that 'this Constitution and the laws of the United 
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and 
all treaties made, or which shall be made under the 
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 
law of the land ; and the Judges in every State shall 
be bound thereby ; anything in the Constitution or laws 
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.' This is 
the authoritive language of the American people ; and, 
if gentlemen please, of the American States. It marks, 
with lines too strong to be mistaken, the characteristic 
distinction between the Grovernment of the Union and 
those of the States. 

The General Government, though limited as to its 
objects, is supreme with respect to those objects. This 
principle is a part of the Constitution ; and if there be 
any who deny its necessity, none can deny its authority. 



I 14 J 

To this Supreme Government ample powers are con- 
fided, and if it were possible to doubt the great pur- 
poses for which they were so confided, the people of the 
United States have declared that they are given ' in 
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, 
ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common 
defence, promote the general welfare, and secure 'the 
blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.' 

With the ample powers confided to this Supreme 
Government for these interesting purposes are connected 
many express and important limitations on the sover- 
eignty of the States, which are made for the same pur- 
poses. The powers of the Union on the great subjects 
of war, peace and commerce, and many others, are in 
themselves limitations of the sovereignty of the States ; 
but in addition to these, the sovereignty of the States 
is surrendered in many instances'" where the surrender 
can only operate to the benefit of the people, and where, 
perhaps, no other power is conferred on Congress than 
a conservative power to maintain the principles estab- ■ 
lished in the Constitution. The maintenance of these 
principles in their purity is certainly among the great 
duties of the Government. One of the instruments by 
which this duty may be peaceably performed is the 
judicial department ; it is authorized to decide all cases 
of every description, arising under the Constitution or 
laws of the United States." 

And after adverting and commenting at length upon 
the dangers of collision likely to arise from State legis- 
lation. State action, and the decision of the State Courts, 
unless the supremacy of the Union and the Constitution 
should be maintained and upheld through the judicial 
department of the Union, this eminent jurist, at page 
387 of this same case, says : '' These collisions may 



[ 15 ] 

•take i:)\ace in times of no extraordinary commotion. 
But a Constitution is framed for ages to come, and is 
designed to approacli immortality as nearly as human 
institutions can approacli it. Its course cannot always 
be tranquil. It is exposed to storms and tempests, and 
its framers must be unwise statesmen indocd if they 
have not provided it, as far as its nature will permit, 
with the means of self-preservation from the perils it 
may be destined to encounter. 'No Government ought 
to be so defective in its organization as not to contain 
within itself the means of securino- the execution of its 
own laws against other dangers than those which occur 
every day. Courts of justice are the means usually 
employed ; and it is reasonable to expect that a Govern- 
ment should repose on its own Courts leather than on 
others." 

And in the case of Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee, 1 
Wheat, R. 342-3, 346-7, 348, Mr. Justice Story, in 
giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in relation to the supremacy of the Union, the 
Constitution, and the decisions of the Judiciary of the 
Union, says: " It has been argued that such an appel- 
late jurisdiction over State Courts is inconsistent with 
the genius of our Government and the spirit of the Con- 
stitution. That the latter was never designed to act 
upon State sovereignties, but only on the people, and 
that if the power exists, it will materially impair the 
sovereignty of the States and the independence of their 
Courts. We cannot yield to the force of this reasoning; 
it assumes principles which we cannot admit, and draws 
conclusions to which we do not yield our assent. 

It is a mistake that the Constitution wtis not designed 
to operate upon States in their corporate capacities. It 
is crowded, with provisions which restrain or annul the 



[ 16 ] 

sovereignty of the States in some of the highest branches 
of their prerogatives. The tenth section of the first 
article contains a long list of disabilities and prohibitions 
imposed upon the States. Surely when such essential 
portions of State sovereignty are taken away, or pro- 
hibited to be exercised, it cannot be correctly asserted 
that the Constitution does not act upon States. The 
language of the Constitution is also imperative upon 
the States as to the performance of many duties. It is 
imperative upon the State legislatures to make laws 
prescribing the time, places and manner of holding elec- 
tions for Senators and Representatives, and for electors 
of President and Vice-President. And in these, as well 
as some other cases. Congress has a right to revise, 
amend or supercede the laws which may be passed by 
State Legislatures. When, therefore, the States are 
stripped of some of the highest attributes of sovereignty, 
and the same are given to the United States ; when the 
Legislatures of the States are, in some respects, under 
the control of Congress, and in every case are, under 
the Constitution, bound by the paramount authority of 
the United States, it is certainly difficult to support the 
argument that the appellate power over the decisions of 
State Courts is contrary to the genius of our institutions. 
The Courts of the United States can, without question, 
revise the proceedings of the Executive and Legislative 
authorities of the States, and if they are found to be con- 
rary to the Constitution, may declare them to be of no 
legal validity. Surely the exercise of the same right 
over judicial tribunals is not a higher or more dangerous 
act of sovereign power. 

Nor can such a right be deemed to impair the inde- 
pendence of State Judges. It is assuming the very 
ground in controversy to assert that they possess an 



[ n ] 

absolute independence of the United States. In respect 
to the powers granted to the United States, they are not 
independent ; they are expressW bound to obedience by 
the letter of the Constitution ; and if they should unin- 
tentionally transcend their authority, or misconstrue the 
Constitution, there is no more reason for giving their 
judgments an absolute and irresistible force, than for 
giving it to the acts of the other co-ordinate departments 
of State sovereignty. 

It is manifest that the Constitution has proceeded 
upon a theory of its own, and given or withheld powers 
according to the judgment of the American people, by 
whom it was adopted. We can only construe its powers, 
and cannot inquire into the policy or principles which 
induced the grant of them. The Constitution has pre- 
sumed (whether rightfully or wrongfully we do not in- 
quire) that State attachments, State prejudices. State 
jealousies, and State interests, might sometimes obstruct 
or control, or be supposed to obstruct or control the reg- 
ular administration of justice." 

And after enumerating the many cases in which par- 
ties have the right to have legal controversies heard in 
the national courts, as well as the " necessit}^ of unifor- 
mitv of decisions throuo'hout the whole United States 
upon all subjects -within the purview of the Constitu- 
tion," this same eminent jurist and scholar says : " There 
is an additional consideration, which is entitled to great 
weight. The Constitution of the United States was 
designed for the common and equal benefit of all the 
people of the United States. The judicial power was 
granted for the same benign and salutary purposes." 

And in the great case of Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 
R. 414, (and from which we have already so freely 
quoted) Chief Justice Marshall holds this emphatic Ian- 



[ 1« ] 

guage : "America has chosen te be, in many respects, 
and to many purposes, a nation ; and for all these pur- 
poses her government is complete. The people have 
declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these 
objects it is supreme. It can then, in effecting these 
objects, legitimately control all individuals or govern- 
ments within the American territory. The Constitution 
and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the 
Constitution and laws of the United States, are abso- 
lutely void. These States are constituent parts of the 
United States. They are members of one great Empire — 
for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subor- 
dinate." 

So, in the cases of Ableman v. Booth, and United 
States V. Booth, 21 How. R. 516, the present Supreme 
Court of the United States, through Chief Justice Taney, 
says : " And although the State of Wisconsin is sove- 
reign within its territorial limits to a certain extent, yet 
that sovereignty is limited andVestricted'bv'the'Consti- 
tution of the United States. And the powers of the 
G-eneral Government, and of the State, although both 
exist and are exercised within the same territorial lim- 
its, are yet separate and distinct sovereignties, acting 
separately and independently of each other, within their 
respective spheres. Arid the sphere of action appropri- 
ated to the United States is as far beyond the reach of 
the judicial process issued by a State Judge or a State 
Court as if the line of division was traced by landmarks 
and monuments visible to the eye. 

But, as wc have already said, questions of tliis kind 
must always depend upon the Constitution and laws of 
the United States and not of a State. The Constitution 
was not formed merely to guard the States against dan- 
ger from foreign nations, but mainly to secure harmony 



L 19 J 

at home ; for if this object could be attained, there would 
be but little danger from abroad ; and to accomplish 
this ])urpose, it was felt by the statesmen who framed 
the Constitution and by the people who adopted it, that 
it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty 
which the States then possessed should be ceded to the 
General Government, and that, in the sphere" of action 
assigned to it, it should be supreme, and strong enough 
to execute its own laws by its own tribunals, without in- 
terruption from a State or from State authorities'. And it 
was evident that anything short of this would be inade- 
quate to the main object for which the Government was 
established, and that local interests, local passions or 
prejudices, incited and fostered by individuals for sinis- 
ter purposes, would lead to acts of aggression and injus- 
tice by one State upon the rights of another, which 
would ultimately terminate in violence and force, unless 
there was a common arbiter between them armed with 
power enough te protect and guard the rights of all by 
appropriate laws, to be carried into execution peacefully 
by its judicial tribunals. 

The language of the Constitution, by which this power 
is granted, is too plain to admit of doubt or to need com- 
ment. It declares that this Constitution, and the laws 
of the United States which shall be passed in pursuance 
thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, 
under the authority of the United States, shall be the 
supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State 
shall be bound thereby ; anything in the Constitution 
or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 

But the supremacy thus conferred on this Govern- 
ment could not peacefully be maintained unless it was 
clothed with judicial power equally paramount in autho- 
rity to carry it into execution ; for if left to the Courts 



[ 20 T 

of Justice of the several States, conflicting decisions 
would unavoidably take place, and the local tribunals 
could hardly be expected to be always free from the 
influences of which we have spoken. And the Consti- 
tution and laws and treaties of the United States and 
the powers granted to the Federal Government, would 
soon receive different interpretations in different States, 
and the Government of the United States would soon 
become one thing in one State and another thing in 
another! It was essential, therefore, to its very exist- 
ence as a Government that it should have the power of 
establishing Courts of Justice, altogether independent 
of State power, to carry into effect its own laws ; and 
that a tribunal should be established in which all cases 
which might arise under the Constitution and laws and 
treaties of the United States, whether in a State Court 
or a Court of the United States, should be finally and 
conclusively decided. Without such a tribunal it is 
obvious that there would be no uniformity of judicial 
decision : and that the supremacy (which is but another 
name for independence) so carefully provided in the 
clause of the Constitution above referred to, could not 
possibly be maintained peacefully unless it was asso- 
ciated with this paramount judicial authority. 

The importance which the framers of the Constitu- 
tion attached to such a tribunal, for the purpose of 
preserving internal tranquility, is strikingly manifested 
by the clause which gives this Court jurisdiction over 
the sovereign States which compose this Union, when a 
controversy arises between them. Instead of reserving 
the right to seek redress for injustice from another State 
by their sovereign powers, they have bound themselves 
to submit to the decision of this Court, and to abide by 
its judgment. And it is not out of place to say here 



I 21 J 

that experience has demonstrated that this pouer was 
not unwisely surrendered by the States ; for in the time 
that has already ehipsed since this Government'came^into 
existence, several irritating and angry controversies 
have taken place between adjoining States in relation to 
their respective boundaries, and which have sometimes 
threatened to end in force and violence, but for the 
power vested in this Court to hear them and decide 
between them. 

This judicial power w^as justly regarded as indispen- 
sible, not merely to maintain the supremacy of the laws 
of the United States, but also to guard the States from 
any encroachment upon these reserved rights by the 
General Government. And as the Constitution is the 
fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that an act 
of Congress is not pursuant to and "within the limits of 
the power assigned to the Federal Government, it is the 
duty of the Courts of the United States to declare it 
unconstitutional and void. The grant of judicial power 
is not confined to the administration of laws passed in 
pursuance to the provisions of the Constitution, nor 
confined to the interpretations of such laws ; but by the 
very terms of the grant the Constitution is under their 
view where any act of Congress is brought before them, 
and it is their duty to declare the law void, and refuse 
to execute it, if it is not pursuant to the legislative 
powers conferred upon Congress. And as the final 
appellate power in all such (questions is given to this 
Court, controversies as to the respective powers of the 
United States and the States, instead of being deter- 
mined by military and physical force, are heard, inves- 
tigated, and finally settled with thej^calmness and 
deliberation of judicial inquiry. And no one can fail to 
see, that if such an arbiter had not been provided, in 



' L 22 ] 

our complicated system of governnieiit, internal tran- 
quility could not have been preserved ; and if such 
controversies were left to arbitrament of physical force, 
our Government, State and National, would cease to be 
governments of laws, and revolutions by force of arms 
would take the place of Courts of Justice and judicial 
decisions. 

In organizing such a tribunal, it is evident that every 
precaution was taken which human wisdom could devise, 
to fit it for the high duty with which it was entrusted. 
It was not left to Congress to create it by law, for the 
States could hardly be expected to confide in the impar- 
tiality of a tribunal created exclusively by the Greneral 
Government without any participation on their part. 
And as the performance of its duty would sometimes 
come in conflict with individual ambition or interests 
and powerful political combinations, an act of Congress 
establishing such a tribunal might be repealed in order 
to establish another more subservient to the predominant 
political influences or excited passions of the day. This 
tribunal, therefore, was erected, and the powers of which 
we have spoken, conferred upon it, not by the Federal 
Government, but by the people of the States, who found 
and adopted that Government and conferred upon it all 
the powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, which it 
now possesses. And in order to secure its independence, 
and enable it faithfully and firmly to perform its duty, 
it engrafted it upon the Constitution itself, and declared 
that this Court should have appellate power in all cases 
arising under the Constitution and laws of the United 
States. So long, therefore, as this Constitution shall 
endure, this tribunal must exist with it, deciding in the 
peaceful forms of judicial proceeding the angry and ir- 
ritating controversies between sovereignties, which, in 



[ ^3 ] 

other countries, have been determined by the arbitra- 
ment of force." 

In the case of Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat. R. 389, 
Chief Justiee Marshall, in delivering the unanimous 
opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
holds this emphatic and explicit language : " The peo- 
ple made the Constitution, and the people can unmake 
it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by 
their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to 
make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of 
the people ; not in any sub-division of them. The at- 
tempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, 
and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people 
have delegated their jiower of tepelling it." 

So in Ableman vs. Booth, 21 How. R. 523-4, (which 
was a case growing out of resistance to the execution of 
the fugitive slave law in Wisconsin,) Chief Justice 
Taney, in giving the unanimous opinion of the Court, 
says: 

" And although, as we have said, it is the duty of the 
Marshal, or other person holding him, to make known, 
by a proper return, the authority under which he de- 
tains him, it is at the same time imperatively his duty 
to obey the process of the United States, to hold the 
prisoner in custody under it, and to refuse obedience to 
the mandate or process of any other government. And 
consequently it is his duty not to take the prisoner, nor 
suffer him to be taken, before a State Judge or Court 
upon a habeas coryus issued under State authority. No 
State Judge or Court, after they are judicially informed 
that the party is imprisoned under the authority of the 
United States, has any right to interfere with him, or 
require him to be brought before them. 

And if the authority of a State, in the form of judicial 



[ 24 ] 

process or otherwise, shpuld attempt to control the Mar- 
shal or other authorized officer or agent of the United 
States, in any respect, in the custody of his prisoner, it 
would be his duty to resist it, and to call to his aid any 
force that might be necessary to maintain the authority 
of the law against illegal interference. 'No judicial pro- 
cess, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful 
authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the 
Court or Judge by whom it is issued ; and an attempt 
to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less 
than lawless violence." 

These decisions of the highest Court known to the 
Constitution and the law, show too clearly to leave any 
room for doubt, that no State nor any one by its autho- 
rity has any right to oppose or interfere with the autho- 
rity and due execution of the laws of the United States. 

And if any or all the citizens of a State oppose with 
force, or there is an assemblage to oppose by force the 
authority or execution of any Constitutional law of the 
United States, all those who perform any part, however 
minute or however remote from the scene of action, and 
who are actually leagued iu the conspirac}^, are guilty 
of Treason. Ex parte BoUman et al., 4 Cranch R., 75, 
per Chief Justice Marshall. 

The third section of Article three of the Constitution 
of the United States declares that " Treason against the 
United States shall consist only in levying war against 
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid 
and comfort." 

When this section defining Treason was before the 
Convention which framed the Constitution, Luther Mar- 
tin, of Maryland, a distinguished member of that Con- 
vention, proposed the following as an amendment : 
"Provided that no act or acts done bv one or more of 



[ ^- ] 

the States against the United States, or by a citizen of 
any one of the United States, shall be deemed treason 
or punished as such ; but in case of war being levied by 
one or more States against the United States, the con- 
duct of each party toward the other, and their adherents 
respectively, shall be regulated by the laws of war and 
of nations." 

Even had this proposed amendment been adopted, 
there would have been no foundation for the assumed 
right of peaceable secession. On the contrary, it would 
only have avoided the fenaUy of Treason, Each and 
every one opposing with force the authority of the Gen- 
eral Government would still be liable to be treated ac- 
cording to the laws of nations and the rules of war. 

But this amendment of Mr. Martin's was voted down 
in a very decided manner, and the above section, declar- 
ing it treason to levy war against the United States, or 
to adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and com- 
fort, was adopted after a full discussion, and on mature 
deliberation. 

All opposition, then, by force, as well as all banding 
together with an assembling to oppose with force the 
authority of the United States, or to prevent the ex- 
ecution of any law of the United States, is Treason, and 
punishable with death. 

How idle, then, to talk of a right of peaceable seces- 
sion ! And how culpable to attempt to deceive the people 
by holding out such false lights, to mislead aiul deceive. 
The Government can only be changed in accordance 
with the requirements of the Constitution, or by Revo- 
lution and force of arms. 

When the Constitution was submitted to the Conven- 
tion in JN'ew York for ratification, it was proposed to 



[ 20 ] 

ratify it conditionally, but this proposition was voted 
down. 

In July 1788 Mr. Madison, in reply to Mr. Hamilton 
on the subject of a conditional ratification and the right 
of a State to withdraw, says : 

"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and 
forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. 
An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as 
an adoption of some of the articles only. In short, any 
condition whatever must vitiate the ratification." * * 

"The idea of reserving the right to withdraw was 
started at Richmond, and. considered as a conditional 
ratification, which w^as itself abandoned as worse than 
rejection." 

Here, then, we have the authority of Mr. Madison, 
the great author of the Constitution, that the Constitu- 
tion was not only designed and intended to be adopted 
unqualifiedly hikI forever, but that it was so understood 
at the time by those who adopted it. It was also well 
understood, as fully appears from the above language 
of Mr. Madison, that no State had the right to withdraw 
after an adoption of the Constitution. 

In 1832, when South Carolina claimed the right of 
secession, and threatened to defy the authority of the 
laws of the United States, that statesman and patriot, 
General Jackson, in his justly celebrated proclamation 
of that year, in speaking of the question as to the right 
of secession, well says : "Every man of plain, unsophis- 
ticated understanding, who hears the question, will give 
such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysi- 
cal subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could 
alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it. 

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the 



L 27 J 

United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with 
the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the 
letter of the Constitution, unauthorized b}^ its spirit, in- 
consistent with every principle on which it was founded, 
and destructive of the great object for which it was 
formed." 

And to vindicate the correctness of the above views 
of Gen. Jackson, (if, indeed, any vindication is neces- 
sary) let us refer to the language of the Supreme Court 
of the United States, in a case which was decided in 
1858. 

In the case of Ableman v. Booth, (21 How. R. 524-5) 
that enlightened Court, through Chief Justice Taney, 
unanimously says : 

" !N'or is there anything in this supremacy of the Gen- 
eral Governmentor the jurisdiction of its judicial tribu- 
nals to awaken the jealousy or offend the natural and 
just pride of State sovereignty. Neither this Govern- 
ment nor the powers of which we are speaking were 
forced upon the States. The Constitution of the United 
States, with all the powers conferred by it on the Gen- 
eral Government and surrendered by the States, delibe- 
rately done for their own protection and safety against 
injustice from one another, and their anxiety to pre- 
serve it in full force, in all its powers, and to guard 
against resistance to or evasion of its authority on the 
part of a State, is proved by the clause which requires 
that the members of the State Legislatures and all Exe- 
cutive and Judicial officers of the sovereign States (as 
well as those of the General Government) shall be bound, 
by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution. 
This is the last and closing clause of the Constitution, 
and inserted when the whole frame of Government, with 
the powers hereinbefore specified, had been adopted by 



[ 28 1 

the Convention ; and it was in that form, and with these 
powers, that the Constitution was submitted to the 
people of the several States for their consideration and 
decision. 

Now, it certainly can be no humiliation to the citizen 
of a republic to yield a ready obedience to the laws as 
administered by the constituted authorities. On the 
contrary, it is among his first and highest duties as a 
citizen, because free government cannot exist without it. 
Nor can it be inconsistent with the dignity of a sove- 
reign State to observe faithfully, and in the spirit of sin- 
cerity and truth, the compact into which it voluntarily 
entered when it became a State of this Union. On the 
contrar}', the highest honor of sovereignty is untarnished 
faith. And certainly no faith could be more deliberately 
and solemnly pledged than that which every State has 
plighted to the other States to support the Constitution 
as it is, in all its provisions, until they shall be altered 
in the manner which the Constitution itself prescribes. 
In the emphatic language of the pledge required, it is 
to support this Constitution. And no power is more 
clearly conferred by the Constitution and laws of the 
United States than the power of this Court to decide, 
ultimately and finally, all cases arising under such Con- 
stitution and laws ; and for that purpose to bring here 
for revision, by- writ of error, the judgment of a State 
Court, where such questions have arisen, and the right 
claimed under them denied by the highest judicial tri- 
bunal in the State." 

And, besides, to this emphatic exposition by the Su- 
preme Court of the duty of the States to adhere to and 
obey the authority of the United States, Section ten, of 
the Constitution, Article one, among other prohibitions, 
says : " No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or 



I 29 J 

confederation, etc." "No State shall, without the con- 
sent of Congress, lay any duty of tonage, keep troops or 
ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement 
or compact with another State or with a foreio-n power, 
etc." 

How then can any State or States enter into any com- 
pact or agreement with another State without violating 
both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution ? How 
raise troops or keep ships of war without also violating 
the sacred compact ? By the Constitution the President 
is required to take the following oath before he enters 
upon the discharge of the duties of his office: "I do 
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute 
the office of President of the United States, and will, to 
the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States." The Constitution 
further provides as follows : " He shall take care that 
the laws be faithfully executed, etc." (Article 1, Sec. 3). 

With such an overwhelming w^eight of the highest 
judicial authority known to the Union and the Consti- 
tution, all the pretensions put forth in the different quar- 
ters of the nation of any right in any part or portion of 
the people of any State or States to disregard or violate 
at their will and pleasure any clause of the Constitution 
or any principle of the sacred compact of the Union, or 
to violate any law made in pursuance of the Constitu- 
tion, must be dissipated and vanish in thin air beneath 
the glorious light of the principles of the Union, the Con- 
stitution and the Enforcement of the Laws, as expound- 
ed by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

JS^or is this to be deemed a hardship in an}^ respect 
whatsover. For, as is well said by Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 
(1 Cond. R. 284) : " Itis emphatically the province and 



L 30 ] 

duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." 

And in a previous part of this same case (1 Cond. R. 
275) it is well said by the Court: " The Government of 
the United States has been emphatically termed a Gov- 
ernment of laws, and not of men." 

It is to this sovereign panoply of the Union, the Con- 
stitution and the law, then, that we would invite one and 
all to rally. 

Beneath the broad and ample folds of the flag of the 
Union, the Constitution and the Enforcement of the 
Laws, all, all will find repose and full and complete 
protection for all their Constitutional rights. 

And besides, let us ever remember, as has been well 
and beautifully said, that ; 

"A thousand years scarce serve to bnild a State.- 
; An hour may lay it in the dust; and when 

Can man its shatter'd splendor renovate, 
Kecall its virtues back and vanquish time and fate." 

Let every one, then, who is a true patriot and friend 
of the Union say with the god-like Webster when ad- 
vocating before the Senate the Compromise measures of 
1850 (and which gave peace, repose and quiet to the 
country) : " I shall stand by the Union and all who 
stand by it. I shall do justice to the whole country,, 
according to the best of my ability in all I say, and act 
for the good of the whole in all I do. I mean to stand 
upon the Constitution. I need no other platform. I 
shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall 
be my Country's, my God's and Truth's." 

Let us, too, cherish and exclaim, with the dying but 
glorious Clay: "I maybe asked, as I have been, when 
I,<would consent to a dissolution of the Union. I 
answer, Never ! JN'ever! JN'ever!" 

And let us cherish with more than filial affection the 
following patriotic advice from the Farewell Address of 
the Father of his Country : 



C 31 ] 

" The unity of the Government which constitutes you 
one people, is also now dear to you It is justly so; 
for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real inde- 
pendence, the support of your tranquility at home, your 
peace abroad, of 3'"our safety, of your prosperity, of that 
very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is 
easy to foresee that from different causes, and from dif- 
ferent quarters, much pains will be taken, many arti- 
fices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction 
of this truth — as this is the point in your political for- 
tress against which the batteries of internal and exter- 
nal enemies will be most constantly (though often 
covertly and insiduously) directed — it is of infinite 
moment that you should properly estimate the im- 
mense value of your national Union to your collective 
and individual happiness; that you should cherish a 
cordial, habitual and immovable attachment to it, ac- 
customing yourselves to think and to speak of it as a 
palladium of your political safety and prosperity ; 
watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety ; dis- 
countenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion 
that it can in any event be abandoned ; and indignantly 
frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to 
alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to 
enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the 
various parts." 

Of this fatherly advice let us also cherish and for- 
ever remember what that great patriot, Greneral Jackson, 
says : 

"The lessons contained in this invaluable legacy of 
Washington to his countrymen should be cherished in 
the heart of every citizen to the latest generation ; and, 
perhaps, at no period of time could they be more use- 
fully remembered than at the present moment. For 



A 



[ 32 ] 

when we look upon the scenes that are passing around 
us, and dwell upon the pages of his parting address, his 
paternal counsels would seem to be not merely the off- 
spring of wisdom and foresight, but the voice of pro- 
phecy foretelling events and warning us of the evil to 
come." 

Let us remember, too, that General Jackson has said : 
"If the Union is once severed, the line of separa- 
tion will grow WIDER and w^ider, and the controversies 
which are now debated and settled in the halls of legis- 
lation, will then be tried in fields of battle, and 
determined by the sword." 

Let us one and all, too, exclaim to the patriots of our 
opponents : 

" Leave your frieyids mid stand hj your COUNTRY P' 
" The Union: IT MUST AND SHALL BE PRE- 
SERVED T 

And, finally, let every true patriot's voice be heard, 
and let the combined shout, " like the mingling of many 
winds, roll on undying to freedom's farthest mountain," 
saying in one joyous and harmonious strain to the 
Union, 

"Long shall it live and every blast defy, 

'Till Time's last whirlwind sweep the vanned sky." 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 895 849 4 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 895 849 4 



